This time on Blogscape Smackdown, we investigate our second TED talk of the year, hosted by Danielle Feinberg: "The magic ingredient that brings Pixar movies to life". This is a deep dive into the creative imagination of a Pixar animator who grew up wanting to take part in the artistic side of sciences and coding- realizing her potential the minute she was introduced to 3D animation. Feinberg takes a particular liking to the lighting aspect of animation due to how it can make or break a scene and often is the key factor in creating the illusion of realism in animation. Here is an analysis of her speech.
The parts of lighting in 3D animation that make the job worth it for Feinberg is the moment when all the pieces fall into place to create the vivid worlds she imagines. From a few lines and faces into a myriad of creativity, her passionate spark is lit ablaze when the scene sprouts alive. The artist in her truly never gets old of this "Wow, I helped make this" moment, and I don't blame her. She explains that lighting has many different uses; such as to tell a story, tell the time of day, tell what emotions are being conveyed in the scene, to draw the viewer's eye, to differentiate a character from a busy set, etc. There's so much creative power to lighting that remains untapped to amateur animators that often takes years to master. The sheer amount of imaginative freedom that can take place inside an animator's computer can become chaotic at times, which leads us to her next point.
Science is always a go-to for grounding unbelievable ideas and animations-- a backbone of sorts to keep things "tethered", as to not fly over the audiences' collective heads. The example Feinberg uses is "Finding Nemo", in which the studio had to do extensive research into the sciences of oceanic movement before even animating. Things such as how the light travels through the water, the invisible currents that move particulate around underneath the surface, how red and green light fade with depth-- the sciences of the ocean are used not only to convey realism but also to help establish shots, she explains, since fog beams were used to hint to the direction of "up" in shots where the surface wasn't in sight. Combining these sciences created the aquatic magic of the scenes here since the combination of invisible currents bending particulate in and out of the fog beams creates a realistic vibe that is both relatable and quirky, fitting in nicely with the story itself. Feinberg explains that tethering your creative limits won't always lead to epiphanies since they (Pixar) had to bend reality to create a believable world that the audience could immerse themselves in-- cranking up the realistic visibility of water to convey a theme, adjusting colors to fit the certain moods an area or scene has, so on. The goal of animation is to create something you and an audience can enjoy and relate to; not something hyperrealistic. We see that every day already. One of the hardships Pixar ran into while working on "Wall-E" was his binocular lenses, which were his only way of acting and conveying emotion. They realized that the way they had him set up, he always appeared glassy-eyed; a hard selling point for any audience that's looking for human qualities. They fidgeted with it forever until they created a light specifically for Wall-E that reflected off of his aperture blades, creating humanesque irises in his lenses. This, ultimately, sold him as a robot with a soul. A robot capable of human emotion. We look for human-like qualities in animation that we relate to. It's ultimately what drives animation; that search for the perfect mix of humanistic realism and fictional sciences that spark millions of forking paths in an animator's psyche. The great thing about this is they were able to utilize the glassiness of his binoculars in a later scene where they had to sell the idea of lifelessness in Wall-E. It worked extraordinarily well, and the movie benefitted greatly from the discovery of this accidental light.
There came a stage in "Finding Nemo" where the entire team struggled. This was the jellyfish scene, one based almost indefinitely on a real-world clip of South African jellyfish. The problem with this scene was that the tether Feinberg explained prior began strangling them when all they were able to focus on were the percentages and data- the sciences; rather than the arts, the beauty of what life brings. She decided to dive deep into the scene when it came time for her and ended up doing the impossible for the team. The moment, she describes, is what she lives for when it comes to her job, her animations, her lighting, and passion; the moment everything, specifically the sciences and arts weave together to give life to a scene and wow everyone in the room. The moment where a scientist also becomes an artist. The moment where you know you can't let this go.
The arts and sciences of this world are astounding to think about, especially on your own. I really enjoyed Feinberg's speech on the intermingling of these ideas. The insight she offers into only an aspect of animation alone gives us all the notion that animation of all kinds can create miraculous spectacles when put to good practice. I remember loving the movie "Coraline" growing up, and I believe it's for this reason. The combination of lighting and dark themes along with the happy-go-luckiness of claymation made for a beautiful endeavor 11-year-old me couldn't get enough of. Although claymation isn't my thing personally, the introduction to animation at a young age definitely inspired me with later projects. The tether of sciences we place on animation often is viewed as a line to cross, but we need not forget the importance of a tether. Without it, we overshoot, we lose sight; grip. We need the line to reel us back in from our flow before we get lost in it and burn out. Find that happy medium and run with it.
Great summary!
ReplyDelete